For the same reason we don't have gladiators anymore. We are at a point in time where humans can meet all of our dietary needs through plants as we now understand what things need to be fortified and which don't. Eating meat, for many people, boils down to killing another being for one's own pleasure "tastiness" (I put it in quotes because most people butcher cooking meat at home). If one has no qualms with killing animals unnecessarily, then we should really be feeding all the stray dogs to the homeless but obviously this does not happen. Why? Because people have moral issues with killing dogs and cats. Not eating meat is simply an extension of this.
I would say the reason it's a taboo to eat predators and scavengers like cats and dogs and rats and bears and sharks and coyotes and tigers and lions and what have you is because predators and scavengers accumulate parasites and toxins.
At any rate, you're still not explaining why, merely pointing out an inconsistency across animals as a whole. What if it is wrong to eat dogs but right to eat cows? Why couldn't it be so?
Where I come from, eating bear was not considered taboo. Many places also with sharks. I'm not sure what kind of response you are looking for, but "thou shall not kill" is a pretty universal rule in all societies around the world. I think the onus is on you to explain why that rule should be broken. For instance, going to war to stop tyranny could be a justification.
Couldn't this line of reasoning also be extended to plants? Why is it wrong to eat a hamburger but not to mow your lawn or treat a bacterial infection? Surely, if all killing is equally wrong, then how can we go on living?
One could even claim to be righteously executing the murderous cow because it spends all day maiming and murdering innocent plant matter.
One could, but with that argument it equates all life as being equal. If that is the case, why is it wrong to murder?
Personally, I can very clearly see that a cow or a dog is concious whereas a plant (if concious at all) is very much further towards unconcious than a human understanding of conciousness. Therefore I opt to reduce the suffering as much as possible.
I would hope if an alien species that was much more concious than we could comprehend were to stumble across earth, they would not cause us suffering and eat us merely because we are not as intelligent as they are.
Your argument also hinges upon the lack of specificity in "thou shalt not kill" in extending it from humans to animals. Why is it wrong to murder conscious things but not unconscious ones?
> Therefore I opt to reduce the suffering as much as possible.
Isn't suffering an unavoidable part of life itself? If this is the aim, then we must immediately kill everything that is alive. That will end suffering the fastest.
> Why is it wrong to murder conscious things but not unconscious ones?
This is a bit pedantic isnt it? I would hope you can come to a conclusion which isnt borderline psychopathic
Yes, suffering is an unavoidable part of life which most organisms seek to reduce as much as possible. Given we all have existence bias and presumably dont want to end our lives prematurely, why would you knowingly want to increase it for others? I should have taken the hint from your initial response of "why is killing animals bad" that this would have been a pointless discussion. Why is killing anything bad?
This is an ad hominem fallacy. Mentioning it doesn't serve to invalidate the argument.
Anyhow, I think the point trying to be made here, is that you're arbitrarily drawing the line on what should be allowed to be killed based upon your own personal moral philosophy. What makes you the righteous one to get to dictate where to draw the line? Nothing but pure opinion (and that goes for anyone else too).
> This is a bit pedantic isnt it? I would hope you can come to a conclusion which isnt borderline psychopathic
If we want to find the truth, we must be brave and see what conclusions our line of reasoning result in. If our investigation leads somewhere too unpalatable, then no doubt one of the assumptions leading down the path is at fault.
> Yes, suffering is an unavoidable part of life which most organisms seek to reduce as much as possible. Given we all have existence bias and presumably dont want to end our lives prematurely, why would you knowingly want to increase it for others? Why is killing anything bad?
Couldn't this be from ignorance? The same way many people fear and avoid the dentist for a long time even though it brings them far greater suffering than the dentist would, couldn't avoiding death too be running away from something that is ultimately good?
